Marwaan Macan-Markar interviews NICOLA BULLARD, member of the WorldSocial Forum’s international council

BANGKOK, Jan 13, 2010 (IPS) – Ten years after its founding, the WorldSocial Forum (WSF) has come to represent a rallying point foractivists and grassroots groups committed to shaping an alternativeworld view.

“It is very important that we have this space for all of us to cometogether and shape a vision that reflects our concerns,” says NicolaBullard, a senior associate of Focus on the Global South, aBangkok-based think tank championing issues that matter to people inthe developing world. “We have been able to build our own discourse,our own thinking, our own legitimacy.”

“It is certainly an alternative to the elite, who build their ownspaces all the time,” adds the Australian national, who has been amember of the WSF’s international council since its inception. “TheWSF is still relevant today.”

Yet the social movement – as opposed to a political party – hasevolved, taking on newer issues that have emerged, including concernsover climate change, which dominates economic justice debates.

As it celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, the WSF will hold aseries of events that will kick off on Jan. 22 in Greater Porto Alegrein southern Brazil. A programme of activities dubbed the “GreaterPorto Alegre 10 years Social Forum,” to be held on January 25-29 inBrazil, will be one of the highlights of the celebration.

“Another world is necessary” to deal with the current ecologicalcrisis, observes Bullard, a Melbourne University graduate who hasworked on global trade, human rights and women’s issues in Australia,Thailand and Cambodia.

IPS met Bullard at her book-lined office in the Thai capital for aninterview ahead of the next gathering of the WSF in Brazil.

Q: The World Social Forum (WSF) to be held later this month in Brazilwill be a milestone. Does the movement have much to celebrate?

A: Absolutely. When the first WSF was held in 2001, no one imagined by2010 that there would be over 40 different social forums planned forthe 10th year. It is certainly a moment to celebrate and also toreflect on what we have achieved and what we haven’t been able toachieve and to look ahead at what we need to do next.

It is particularly timely given what happened in Copenhagen inDecember during the climate change talks. There is a resurgence, acritical momentum for economic justice that emerged during the talks.There is a new energy, a new challenge that the WSF can build on.

Q: On the subjects of achievements, what do you hold out as successstories of the WSF in the past decade?

A: The idea that the WSF is really a space that is ours. It is not aspace for protest or a space created in response to an official event,such as at the WTO (World Trade Organisation) or IMF (InternationalMonetary Fund) meetings, where we have to gather on the margins. Butthe WSF is a physical and political space created by us and for us andthe agenda is ours – a bottom-up process.

Secondly, the WSF has, through a lot of critical thinking and a prettyopen process, been able to grow over the years. There are differentkinds of events, different kinds of people attending, a diversity ofissues discussed and the very deliberate attempt to have a prettyhorizontal participatory and inclusive process.

Q: But has there been an attempt to measure such success, to say theseare concrete achievements linked to the WSF that it can be proud of?

A: This is the endless debate we have had, because some people wouldargue that the impact of the WSF should be measurable by the actualpolitical changes on the ground, and that the WSF needs to be morestrategic and have clear objectives.

On the other hand, other people would argue that the WSF is an openspace, and that is its strength and particular beauty, where tradeunions and people from political organisations or indigenous peoplecan come together and share ideas and build common perspectives andlanguage.

But there was a lot of momentum in the way the WSF positioned itselfagainst the (World Economic Forum) meetings in Davos.

During the meetings in Davos, the WSF was seen as an alternative eventthat takes place in the South and where the agenda is very differentfrom what is discussed in Davos. The fact that more political leaderswant to be part of the WSF shows that it is an important place forthem to be seen and be associated with.

Q: Talking of Davos, where the captains of international trade andcommerce meet in the Swiss resort to plot the shape of the world’seconomy, let’s move toward the global financial crisis. The WSFcertainly had little part in what happened, but is there anything theWSF stood to gain from this crisis?

A: I think the fact that the critics of the global financial systemwere so readily at hand because there were academics and writers andactivists who had been talking about these for years needs to berecognised. Suddenly these were the people journalists and the mediawere going to. In that respect, the analysis and the critics comingout of the WSF suddenly found a resonance in the public arena.

Q: Another issue the WSF sought to make its mark on was opposition tothe war in Iraq launched by former U.S. President George W. Bush. Youcertainly failed to stop that U.S. invasion.

A: The WSF was important as a mechanism for making the February 15(2003) global day of action against the war in Iraq such a strongprotest. The WSF provided a kind of legitimacy for the global actionsagainst the war. It was important in delegitimising the war.

Q: The current global concern, as you mentioned earlier, is climatechange. It is supposed to be on the WSF’s agenda in Brazil this month.How will it be addressed?

A: The WSF has always said that ‘Another world is possible’. What theclimate change crisis tells us is that ‘Another world is necessary’.It is very clear that the ecological crisis is a systemic problem. Inso far as the WSF is talking about alternatives, I think up until nowmany groups at the WSF have concentrated very much on economics. Weneed to enlarge that to accommodate the ecological frame and buildstrong networks with indigenous movements and other sectors that wehave not worked with before.

I also think this will be an interesting challenge to the traditionalLeft, which had a fairly materialist view, or somehow believed in theidea that development means progress. But the ecological crisis is areal challenge to that view. What does development mean if the priceyou pay is the complete destruction of the eco-system?

Q: How truly global is the WSF 10 years after its conception? Does ithave a wide following in Asia?

A: Even up until now the WSF continues to be a very European- andLatin American-dominated process. We have had several really goodsocial forums in Asia in places like (South) Korea, India, Pakistanand even Thailand. But I don’t think the WSF has really dug deep rootsin Asia. That is my impression.

Q: Why?

A: There is a unity of common experience in Latin America and theyhave two languages that unite vast sections of the continent. It isdifficult in Asia because of the many languages, because of the sizeand the diversity. (END)